The dismissal of an appeal can be considered 'in limine' if based on a mistaken understanding of earlier rulings, allowing for corrective measures under the 2020 Act, facilitating the revival of the original appeal.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Shakdher, J.: (ORAL)

Table of Contents

Preface: -

Background facts: -

Submissions on behalf of the petitioner/assessee: -

Submissions on behalf of the revenue: -

Analysis and Reasons: -

Conclusion: -

Preface:

1. Via this writ petition, the petitioner-assessee seeks to lay a challenge to the orders dated 27.01.2021 and 11.02.2021, whereby, Forms 1 and 2 filed by it under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (in short "the 2020 Act") were rejected by the designated authority.

Background facts:

2. The impugned orders came to be passed in the background of the following board facts and circumstances:

2.1. The Assessing Officer [in short "AO"] vide order dated 21.03.2014, concerning the assessment year ("AY") 2011-2012, pegged the petitioner- assessee.s taxable income at Rs.2,19,50,020/-. as against the declared income of Rs.21,21,160/-.

2.2. In arriving at the assessed income, the AO, inter alia, added to the petitioner-assessee.s declared income, agricultural income, amounting to Rs.7,06,145/- and also disallowed the deduction of Rs.1,91, 22,723 claimed by the petitioner-assessee under Section 80IC of INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (in short "the Act").

2.3. Aggrieved, by the decision rendered by the AO, the petitioner- assessee preferred an appeal with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short "CIT(A)"]. The CIT(A) allowed the petitioner.s- assessee.s appeal vide order dated 29.01.2016.

2.4. This time around, the revenue escalated the matter and preferred an appeal with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue vide order dated 22.06.2018. While dismissing the appeal, in the operative part of its order, the Tribunal made the following observations:

"7. We have heard the Ld. DR and it is a matter of record that CIT(A) has proceeded on the footing that in A.Ys. 2008-09, 09-10 and 2010-11 identical issue was decided in favour of the assessee. The CIT (A) held as under:

"10.7 Facts of the case during the year are identical to AY 2008-09, 09-10 and 2010-11. Therefore, respectfully following the order of CIT (A) dated 16.09.2011 for AY 2008-09 and for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11, it is held that deduction u/s 80IC is allowable to the assessee of Rs.1,88,63,283/- on the net profit arising in 1st, 2nd and 3rd category and, therefore, addition to the extent of which made by the Assessing Officer is deleted and deduction u/s 80IC is not allowable on the profit on sale of ALP reagent kit, ALT reagent kit and AST reagent kit (4th Category) amounting to Rs. 2,60,117/- and addition made by the Assessing Officer is upheld to that extent."

Thus, the Ld. DR could not controvert the findings given by the CIT(A) that the Tribunal in earlier assessment years dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. Therefore, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal and there is no need to interfere with the finding of the CIT(A). The Revenue's appeal is dismissed."

[Emphasis is ours]

2.5. The revenue, thereafter, moved a miscellaneous application [in short "MA"], under Section 2 54(2) of the Act, seeking to bring to the notice of the Tribunal, the error, which, according to it, was apparent on the face of the record. The revenue pointed out, in its application, that, as a matter of fact, the Tribunal had reversed the view, taken by the CIT(A) in the earlier years, i.e., AYs 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, contrary to what was noted in the Tribunal.s order dated 22.06.2018.

2.6. It would be relevant to note that, when the Tribunal passed the order dated 22.06.2018, the petitioner-assessee was not represented.

2.7